Jezza Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 As per title, special needs doo on SSN discussing at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 According to STV it is a better deal then the current one. Though no figures released yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jezza Posted November 21, 2011 Author Share Posted November 21, 2011 According to STV it is a better deal then the current one. Though no figures released yet. Hopefully includes better kick off times, doubtful though as if it's more money it means more dictation for SKY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ritchies75 Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 So all the talk of SPL TV was to convince Sky/ESPN they had an alternative so Sky would pay more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudi Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Hopefully includes better kick off times, doubtful though as if it's more money it means more dictation for SKY. Only for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Hopefully includes better kick off times, doubtful though as if it's more money it means more dictation for SKY. I would doubt it. Personally I am uneasy with a 5 year deal. Though hopefully if Sky are pumping more money then before on the SPL they might have better coverage. The current deal works out about ?21m a year, so the new deal will be at least over ?100m, which is a nice headline figure that would help give the league some good PR (though the current deal when broken down (if it was all distributed equally which it isn't) works out at ?1.8m a club.) So be interested to know what will happen. Also would like clubs to ring fence some of the money each club gets to be put into youth development at the club, would be a wise investment. All STV saying there will only be 30 games a season televised, any idea how many are currently televised? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 . double post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splog Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Stupid question: As depressing as it is, at least half the value of the scottish football tv deal comes from the inclusion of celtic and rangers games and, even more so, Celtic vs Rangers games. Now, if Rangers were to somehow go down the tubes, the value of the TV deal takes a huge hit. So, are Rangers and Celtic explicitly written in to the contract? Can Sky/ESPN walk away if Rangers don't compete one season for whatever reason? Or do we get less money? cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Buaben Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 I would doubt it. Personally I am uneasy with a 5 year deal. Though hopefully if Sky are pumping more money then before on the SPL they might have better coverage. The current deal works out about ?21m a year, so the new deal will be at least over ?100m, which is a nice headline figure that would help give the league some good PR (though the current deal when broken down (if it was all distributed equally which it isn't) works out at ?1.8m a club.) So be interested to know what will happen. Also would like clubs to ring fence some of the money each club gets to be put into youth development at the club, would be a wise investment. All STV saying there will only be 30 games a season televised, any idea how many are currently televised? There is one week minimum sometimes two. So about 50 ish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 There is one week minimum sometimes two. So about 50 ish Having a look at the announcement on the SPL website it makes it sound like it is actually 30 games for each broadcaster, so 60 in total, I remember Setanta boasting (while they were still around) that they broadcast 62 SPL games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SE16 3LN Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Surpised that we're getting anything for the product on offer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudi Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Stupid question: As depressing as it is, at least half the value of the scottish football tv deal comes from the inclusion of celtic and rangers games and, even more so, Celtic vs Rangers games. Now, if Rangers were to somehow go down the tubes, the value of the TV deal takes a huge hit. So, are Rangers and Celtic explicitly written in to the contract? Can Sky/ESPN walk away if Rangers don't compete one season for whatever reason? Or do we get less money? cheers. If the OF were to walk from Scottish football we would NOT be in negotiations with ESPN/Sky,unfortunatly we do need them for TV money. I would think that ESPN/Sky will have some sort of "get out clause" if either or both the OF go for what ever reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swavkav Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 I would doubt it. Personally I am uneasy with a 5 year deal. Though hopefully if Sky are pumping more money then before on the SPL they might have better coverage. The current deal works out about ?21m a year, so the new deal will be at least over ?100m, which is a nice headline figure that would help give the league some good PR (though the current deal when broken down (if it was all distributed equally which it isn't) works out at ?1.8m a club.) So be interested to know what will happen. Also would like clubs to ring fence some of the money each club gets to be put into youth development at the club, would be a wise investment. All STV saying there will only be 30 games a season televised, any idea how many are currently televised? from sky text," Each broadcaster will continue to show 30 live games a seasonin a deal from 2012/13 to the end of the 2016/17 campaign" so thats 10 games a season that dont include the infirm pair, disgusting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beats Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Having a look at the announcement on the SPL website it makes it sound like it is actually 30 games for each broadcaster, so 60 in total, I remember Setanta boasting (while they were still around) that they broadcast 62 SPL games. I think it's around 60 games just now 40 Espn and 20 Sky.I might be wrong though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad-Stupid Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Surpised that we're getting anything for the product on offer I watched a St Mirren vs Hibs game once on ESPN. I was actually embarrassed at the thought of anyone from outside Scotland watching it. Horrendous stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Buaben Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 I think it's around 60 games just now 40 Espn and 20 Sky.I might be wrong though! Although Sky get all 4 OF games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_jambo Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 This is good news if we are seeking an investor. ?100 million worth of guaranteed revenue over the next 5 years. It's a start when it comes to someone trying to make our football club self-sufficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Italian Lambretta Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Whether or not people view it as bad publicity Sky must have been doing cartwheels with some of the goings on a tynecastle in the last year. Our matches against the Victims have become box office and of course the asault by Neil Lennon on John Wilson has made us much more appealing to Sky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadKiller Dog Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 These days a TV deal is needed ,will make it more likey now for the SPL to get a sponsor after Clydesdale bank go and for clubs like us to sell advertising space as we will feature a good few times . Not great for us active fans given stupid oclock KO times , I would prefer friday nights to sunday mornings but police wont allow that for bigger games . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudi Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Just done a quick calculation(might be wrong) but going by the last contract and how it was distributed,then if we finished 3rd next season we would make ?1.34m and the winners taking ?1.76,small change when you see what our neigbours are making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.T.K Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 So I was hoping that there would be some discussion about a new league format but Im not sure this will happen now. Your telly men want there 4 OF games a season and have a contract for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vintage1874 Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 The money will be welcomed, (although will not shared equally).However probably means we'll be stuck with the existing league set up as Sky will want 4 OF games per season. In the end nothing will change for the better. I just wish the spl would look at broadcasting their own games and go for summer football which would give our game more exposure as for most of the summer months no competition for other countries. Long term this could bring more money for Scottish football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Buaben Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Whether or not people view it as bad publicity Sky must have been doing cartwheels with some of the goings on a tynecastle in the last year. Isnt that why Umbro got involved with us aswell. Taken from the scotsman. The very fact that what is going on at Hearts is being talked about the length and breadth of the United Kingdom gives us an increased profile," said Marsh. "We see that as a positive and would suggest that the club sees it as a positive in some respects because they are being talked about further afield than just Scotland." Such newsworthiness is not always for the desired reasons, although Umbro will maintain that all publicity is good publicity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudi Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 So I was hoping that there would be some discussion about a new league format but Im not sure this will happen now. Your telly men want there 4 OF games a season and have a contract for this. Fortunately or unfortunately it's one of the biggest derbies in world football,that's what the paying public want to see so the TV companies show it,all we can do is make a few quid out of it,like it or not,there would be no deal if the OF were not part of Scottish football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cut The Crap Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Surpised that we're getting anything for the product on offer Agreed. The only games of interest to the neutral are the four Old Firm derbies and even they are a disappointment as often as not. The rest is howfing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boab Mugabe Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Whether or not people view it as bad publicity Sky must have been doing cartwheels with some of the goings on a tynecastle in the last year. Our matches against the Victims have become box office and of course the asault by Neil Lennon on John Wilson has made us much more appealing to Sky All that matters to a broadcaster is that you are tuning in. Think what you like but don't turn off. I am amazed that our shan, boring, pre-determined league got a TV deal though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Wrong figures, Setanta was worth over ?100m. The Sky/ESPN deal was about ?65m. This deal is worth about ?80m over the five years. I meant ?100m over 5 years, if the new deal was the same per season as the ?65m deal. This is crazy, the SPL are praising this deal, yet it means the clubs get less per season, yes it is bigger then the last deal, but thats only because it is 2 years long. Before it was ?65m over 3 years, or ?21.6m per season (or or ?1.81m per club if deal is split fairly) the new one is ?80m over five years, or ?16m per season, (or ?1.33m per club if deal is split fairly.) Yes its good we have guarenteed income but it is only going to cause more problems with finances and will be 5 years before we can get a better deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homme Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 A good tv deal will ensure Doncaster and co continue to fail to see Scottish football's misgivings. This reads good when in reality all it will do is see that we are served up the same old shit for the next half decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auldreekie1874 Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 I meant ?100m over 5 years, if the new deal was the same per season as the ?65m deal. This is crazy, the SPL are praising this deal, yet it means the clubs get less per season, yes it is bigger then the last deal, but thats only because it is 2 years long. Before it was ?65m over 3 years, or ?21.6m per season (or or ?1.81m per club if deal is split fairly) the new one is ?80m over five years, or ?16m per season, (or ?1.33m per club if deal is split fairly.) Yes its good we have guarenteed income but it is only going to cause more problems with finances and will be 5 years before we can get a better deal. For SPL read Neil Doncaster. The man is a complete moron. When I first read the report I was suspicious that no figures were mentioned but the above explains that perfectly. Doncaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locky Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Only going to be more money lining those ****s pockets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay B-8) Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 lol teh spl will be bitting peoples hands of for this deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoussetsShorts Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 gutted at this purely for the fact it means more fixtures at stupid times on silly days. I'd be happier if they hadn't got a deal and we returned to ALL games on Saturday at 3pm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Comedian Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 They certainly won't be getting money from me for that pish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Just done a quick calculation(might be wrong) but going by the last contract and how it was distributed,then if we finished 3rd next season we would make ?1.34m and the winners taking ?1.76,small change when you see what our neigbours are making. If HMFC could fill Tynecastle with ST holders we could tell Sky/ESPN to ram their deal up their feckin erse, as the bums on seats would generate more money than we will get through Sky. These deals benefit only two clubs in Scotland, and we ain't one of them. The more games they show the more they will want control of kick off times/days etc, tell them to feck off and lets get back to Saturday football, 15:00, with those wanting to watch being inside the stadia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidkeye Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Just done a quick calculation(might be wrong) but going by the last contract and how it was distributed,then if we finished 3rd next season we would make ?1.34m and the winners taking ?1.76,small change when you see what our neigbours are making. Very true, Wolves are in line to pick up ?42 million in TV revenue this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deans Jambo Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 I meant ?100m over 5 years, if the new deal was the same per season as the ?65m deal. This is crazy, the SPL are praising this deal, yet it means the clubs get less per season, yes it is bigger then the last deal, but thats only because it is 2 years long. Before it was ?65m over 3 years, or ?21.6m per season (or or ?1.81m per club if deal is split fairly) the new one is ?80m over five years, or ?16m per season, (or ?1.33m per club if deal is split fairly.) Yes its good we have guarenteed income but it is only going to cause more problems with finances and will be 5 years before we can get a better deal. How do you know the figures of the new deal when the Spl aren't revealing what they are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMA MAROON Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 If HMFC could fill Tynecastle with ST holders we could tell Sky/ESPN to ram their deal up their feckin erse, as the bums on seats would generate more money than we will get through Sky. These deals benefit only two clubs in Scotland, and we ain't one of them. The more games they show the more they will want control of kick off times/days etc, tell them to feck off and lets get back to Saturday football, 15:00, with those wanting to watch being inside the stadia. We could maybe do without it but St Miren, Killie, Motherwell, Dunfermline etc etc need the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 How do you know the figures of the new deal when the Spl aren't revealing what they are? Couple of journalists have said they understand it being around ?80m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deans Jambo Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Couple of journalists have said they understand it being around ?80m. So you take everything journalists say to be correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Bapswent Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 So you take everything journalists say to be correct? Its the best information we currently have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 So you take everything journalists say to be correct? Nope but they seem to have got it from some good sources from the sounds of things. At the momment that is all we have, so I will speculate on the supposed info we have. If its wrong then I will change it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Couple of journalists have said they understand it being around ?80m. Borthers was correct with the last deal it was ?65 million over 5 years, I suppose in the overall scheme of things an additional ?15 million only pans out as ?3 million a year for a 5 year period, so it doesn't seem like a wild figure to even guess at (I suppose it is how much they get to feck up the fixture lists for that additional financial input that really matters). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Borthers was correct with the last deal it was ?65 million over 5 years, I suppose in the overall scheme of things an additional ?15 million only pans out as ?3 million a year for a 5 year period, so it doesn't seem like a wild figure to even guess at (I suppose it is how much they get to feck up the fixture lists for that additional financial input that really matters). Ah was it? I was taking my info from an STV story which said the ?65m was a 3 year deal (think there was a clause that allowed it to carry on for 2 years but thought that would add another sum.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Just facilitates more of the same imo ....... propping up a deeply flawed product and these muppets who steadily taking our game on a downward spiral. Only after disaster can we be resurrected iam afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsuperslim1874 Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Although any money is good at this time, the downside is that the St Mirren chairman was on Sportsound and was asked if this deal meant that league reconstruction was on hold for the next 5 years and he pretty much said 'yes'. He also confirmed (what we all knew anyway) that the main stipulation from SKY was the 4 Old Firm games. We are well and truly fokked with regards to changing to a larger league now. If you don't like what you are watching now then another 5 years of it is hardly going to bring the punters back. Thoroughly pissed-off that we have become complete and utter slaves to TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southside1874 Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Although any money is good at this time, the downside is that the St Mirren chairman was on Sportsound and was asked if this deal meant that league reconstruction was on hold for the next 5 years and he pretty much said 'yes'. He also confirmed (what we all knew anyway) that the main stipulation from SKY was the 4 Old Firm games. We are well and truly fokked with regards to changing to a larger league now. If you don't like what you are watching now then another 5 years of it is hardly going to bring the punters back. Thoroughly pissed-off that we have become complete and utter slaves to TV. In the unlikely event of one of the "Old Firm" turning utterly crap and being relegated, how does the SPL confirm that they will get 4 "Old "Firm" games a season for the next 5 years? This presumption surely goes against fair play and is up for debate....... I'll not bother about both of them finishing in the top six each season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambof3tornado Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 In the unlikely event of one of the "Old Firm" turning utterly crap and being relegated, how does the SPL confirm that they will get 4 "Old "Firm" games a season for the next 5 years? This presumption surely goes against fair play and is up for debate....... I'll not bother about both of them finishing in the top six each season. its ok,the refs will make sure no harm comes to either half of the old firm!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 So ?80m over five years. ?16m per season of which the majority will go to the infirm. Fab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 If HMFC could fill Tynecastle with ST holders we could tell Sky/ESPN to ram their deal up their feckin erse, as the bums on seats would generate more money than we will get through Sky. These deals benefit only two clubs in Scotland, and we ain't one of them. The more games they show the more they will want control of kick off times/days etc, tell them to feck off and lets get back to Saturday football, 15:00, with those wanting to watch being inside the stadia. Amen to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I assume this deal is the BRIBE to ensure any Rangers newco is allowed straight back into the SPL ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.